The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Sawyer[edit]

Hugh Sawyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Is this person truly notable? Nothing in the article suggests so. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added sources, including one print newspaper, to the article. He's been covered at length by three separate print newspapers, plus online independent, reliable subject-matter venues. At least one print newspaper and one of the aforementioned online venues have done followups on him. That seems to meet WP:BIO to me. I think the notability just needs to be better communicated in the article. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 05:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Passes WP:V, marginally passes WP:N. Digital^NinjaWTF 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's notable, though this may be blind luck on his part. Plenty of similarly-reclusive individuals with an agenda never manage to catch the media's attention. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, and don't believe he passes WP:N, despite a couple of mentions in daily newspapers. This is Wikipedia:Recentism and it's not nice. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many sources as noted above, so it meets notability.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• undefined — Can someone clarify the lead? I'm still not sure what the article is about. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He is an oddity, but the amount of newspaper coverage suggests that hue is notable. However the article is only a stub at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.